Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial
conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously
thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues
having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing
results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed
fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”,
such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions
of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour
only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried
out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases
such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist
disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less
unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence
suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg
and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS
One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct
surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint
a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation
are widespread.

In all the surveys people were asked about both their
own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct
was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual
invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the
heading “questionable practices”. These included
dropping data points based on a “gut feeling”
and failing to publish data that contradict one’s
previous research.

The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning
up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues
is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr
Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research
is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees
of anonymity.”

The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although
higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to
be conservative.

Another explanation for the differences between the self-report
results and colleague-report results could be that people
consider themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal
case, people might characterise their colleagues’
behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their
own.

The study included scientists from a range of disciplines.
Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or
pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears
that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial
interests.